The Oregonian - Editorial

Saturday, March 01, 2008 - Metro pg. B4

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn has about 90 "holds" on Senate legislation, spokesman John Hart says. The proposed Mount Hood wilderness bill is just one of them.

Coburn issued a letter to his colleagues last year saying he would object to legislation that calls for new spending without offsetting cuts elsewhere. Since then, he has gained a reputation as an obstructionist. Oregon Sens. Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden professed frustration this week that Coburn blocked a complicated Mount Hood wilderness bill that involved land swaps, had the support of Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Committee for Energy and Natural Resources and even had won general assent from the Bush administration.

But Coburn, says Hart, "would rather focus on the mountain of debt than Mount Hood."

So what's the problem, exactly?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Lewis & Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007 would cost taxpayers $3 million this year and another $8 million through the 2012 fiscal year. Most of that is for mapping and surveying, with $1 million being used to pay private landowners to equalize the land swaps. The federal land to be swapped "generates no significant receipts," and will have "negligible" net budgetary impact over the next 10 years, according to the CBO.

Balance that relatively modest financial outlay against the scale of the wilderness bill: It creates 124,000 acres of wilderness, adds 80 miles of forest waterways to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and designates about 34,550 acres as the Mount Hood National Recreation Area. It is the product of years of debate, haggling, public hearings and political maneuvering. It would bring a measure of certainty to the complex legal, economic and political landscape around Oregon's iconic mountain.

And now this. The Oklahoma senator cites the nation's $8.6 trillion debt as a reason to block the $11 million wilderness bill, as well as the 89 other bills on which he's placed holds. Applaud him as a man of principle, if you like, but consider the convenience of his principles. When it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have cost taxpayers about $700 billion since Sept. 11, 2001, Sen. Coburn admits to "concern" about the costs, but still supports the cause, which is fueled by borrowed money.

"We are winning, the Iraqi people are winning, and the Iraqi troops are winning," Coburn argued on the Senate floor this week. "Let's not destroy that."

And to the people who argue "Let's not destroy Mount Hood," Coburn's response is that Sens. Smith and Wyden should bring the wilderness bill to a floor vote, where it might well pass. But the sheer tonnage of Coburn's holds on Senate legislation makes such an option unworkable. If he chose to contest each of the bills through the Senate's procedural playground, he could virtually tie up the Senate for 90 weeks, Wyden's office suggests. Everybody on both sides of the debate understands that the Senate can't afford to spend a week talking about Mount Hood.

The maddening thing is that it shouldn't have to. The senator from Oklahoma should consult his conscience, unclench his fists and release his hold on the Mount Hood wilderness bill.